CO2 Emissions from Wood Fuel

Qyburn

This site was linked to from another discussion. Looking at it I saw this amazingly ill informed article about wood fuel. They are seriously saying that gas produces less CO2 than wood!

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/log-burners-environment

mumf

Qyburn said:

This site was linked to from another discussion. Looking at it I saw this amazingly ill informed article about wood fuel. They are seriously saying that gas produces less CO2 than wood!

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/log-burners-environment

I found the first paragraph interesting. Replacement trees take 10 years to grow for firewood usage. That is a criticism. When gas is burnt,then eeer ,that’s it,it’s gone! 

Qyburn

Some headline statistics are quickly found.

• The UK land area covered by woodland has increased from 9.0% in 1980 to 13.3% in 2022.

And firewood accounts for 3.6% of timber priduction, by value.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2022

FreeBear

A few other points about CO2 and trees.

When a tree dies and the wood rots, it releases CO2 back in to the atmosphere.

The carbon cycle of growing trees, burning the logs, releasing CO2, uptake of the CO2 by other trees is all relatively short.

The carbon cycle of burning gas or coal is extremely long - In the million of years.

Trees are a renewable resource that has other benefits beyond just providing fuel - Fruit, nuts, shade, wind breaks, shelter for wildlife, and so on.

Yes, PM2.5 emissions is a concern, but we can not continue to burn fossil fuels.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Every single log we've burnt in 10 years, possibly except one singe net bag of 5 logs from the garage, has come from trees that would have been cut down regardless rather than specifically for firewood.

So far all our wood has come from within a 20 mile radius of where we live, around 75% from a 5 mile radius. 

It looks like wood for the foreseeable future will be coming from 200 miles away but again trees haven't been cut for firewood. 

If we were allowed to take the wood rotting away in the plantations (either the trees that didn't make it and died or the stuff left behind after logging activities) covering the mountains we could probably heat our home for 100 lifetimes and never have to travel more than 5 miles. 

The only thing I would say is that often people say burning wood is carbon neutral, which is closer to truth if you go with your axe to cut it down, drag it home by hand and cut it up with a hand saw, which obviously rarely happens. Also dead trees can store carbon as organic matter as they decay rather than releasing it all into the atmosphere. 

The fossil fuel companies don't particularly have a cheerful history, accusations of significant environmental damage and human rights violations, not to mention one lobbying to deny climate change whilst internally knowing it's existence and the impact fossil fuel have. 

Overall I'm fairly content with the environmental impact of heating our home with wood. 

Qyburn

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The only thing I would say is that often people say burning wood is carbon neutral, which is closer to truth if you go with your axe to cut it down, drag it home by hand and cut it up with a hand saw, which obviously rarely happens.   

It's true that preparing firewood almost certainly uses some other energy, maybe fossil fuelled. For example we use a bit less than 5L fuel for the chainsaw so even our own production is not quite neutral.

But for a fair comparison those overheads should also  be included for oil or gas. Fuel consumption by tankers, refineries, IT systems etc. Not just the emission when the refined fuel is finally burned.

Strummer22

I'm an environmental consultant. The CO2 emissions/savings from domestic wood burning in the UK are basically a drop in the ocean. Those who do have a wood burner typically use it for only a small fraction of their heating needs, so they make up a tiny proportion of our domestic emissions. Wood burners do dump the CO2 from the wood straight into the atmosphere, which would otherwise take years or decades to be fully released by natural decay. However, that the CO2 from burning gas will effectively never be released otherwise is a point well made by other posters above.

The key point is air pollution (not to be conflated with climate change; air pollution is primarily a localised issue). In towns and cities, particularly those in valleys, wood burning can cause hazardous levels of air pollution. During prolonged spells of cold, still weather this can be really serious. As such, I am not against wood burners in isolated rural properties, but they are terrible for air quality in towns.  

Qyburn

What is your view on the current DEFRA approved stoves, that are permitted in smoke control areas? How great a reduction in particulates compared to open fires, and compared to older stoves?

It's a distinction that doesn't seem to be made by campaigners who seem to view all stoves as equally bad, but strangely don't seem to complain about open fires.

Qyburn

Strummer22 said: The CO2 emissions/savings from domestic wood burning in the UK are basically a drop in the ocean.   

That's a bit of an irrelevant argument in my opinion, and with respect. Any single installation is a drop in the ocean but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the savings that we can. To put some figures we save at least 500L of oil by shortening the central heating season and using wood instead on cold evenings.

dunstonh

Qyburn said:

Strummer22 said: The CO2 emissions/savings from domestic wood burning in the UK are basically a drop in the ocean.   

That's a bit of an irrelevant argument in my opinion, and with respect. Any single installation is a drop in the ocean but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the savings that we can. To put some figures we save at least 500L of oil by shortening the central heating season and using wood instead on cold evenings.

Which is pretty much the main reason so many rural homeowners have a burner.   It reduces oil use.

A combination of mothballing a wing of the house and running the burners more for targeted heating meant that we used 1600 litres less oil last year.  A mild winter helped.  Half our wood is from our own land.

What is your view on the current DEFRA approved stoves, that are permitted in smoke control areas? How great a reduction in particulates compared to open fires, and compared to older stoves?

Massive difference.  Even from stoves from 10 years ago.  We have a particulate monitor and it goes into amber and sometimes red during the summer but never once has it gone off in winter.  Even when all three burners are running.

The improvement in stoves is impressive but the big differences are on what you burn and how you burn it.    Some people put absolute junk in their burners. Creosoted wood, wet wood etc.   Or they turn the air down too low or let it run too high that it just burns for effect rather than achieve anything.  That is where the bulk of the particulates come from.

Strummer22

Qyburn said:

Strummer22 said: The CO2 emissions/savings from domestic wood burning in the UK are basically a drop in the ocean.   

That's a bit of an irrelevant argument in my opinion, and with respect. Any single installation is a drop in the ocean but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the savings that we can. To put some figures we save at least 500L of oil by shortening the central heating season and using wood instead on cold evenings.

Yes in that respect it's true, many small incremental reductions in emissions add up to a big reduction. The competing view is that we should aim to make the biggest reductions in emissions possible at the lowest cost and least disruption. I don't think wood burners fit very high on that list, simply because it's not feasible, or healthy, for everyone in a town or city to have one.